Ihsar (being prevented from completing the rite)

Ihsar (being prevented from completing a rite) means, in the lexicon, being kept from reaching the rites by sickness or the like; the jurists give the word the same sense, though they differ on what counts as prevention. ¹ Jurists used the root h-s-r and its derivatives for barring a pilgrim from the pillars of the rite, following the Qur'an, until ihsar became an established technical term. ¹ The Hanafis define it as being prevented from both standing at Arafat and circling the House after entering the obligatory or voluntary hajj, and in umra as being prevented from circling; the definition is not disputed. ¹ The Malikis define it as being prevented from standing and circling together, or from one of them. ¹ The Shafi'is follow al-Ramli's definition: being prevented from completing the pillars of hajj or umra; the Hanbalis agree, since they hold ihsar applies to any pillar, with a slight difference on how to release oneself when prevented from standing but not circling. ¹ The legal basis of the consequence of ihsar is release in the manner described later. The root of the subject is the episode of Hudaybiyya; the verse in al-Baqara (196) on completing hajj and umra was revealed then, and it orders what offering is easy to find when prevented and forbids shaving until the offering reaches its place. ² Al-Bukhari reports from Ibn Umar that the Quraysh unbelievers barred the House, and the Prophet ﷺ slaughtered his offering and shaved his head. ² What makes ihsar occur: it occurs when its pillar exists, which is being prevented from continuing the rite, hajj or umra, provided certain conditions hold, some agreed and some disputed. ² The pillar of ihsar. The jurists differ on whether the prevention that causes ihsar includes prevention by an enemy and by illness or similar causes, or applies only to an enemy. ² The Hanafis say ihsar occurs by an enemy and by other causes, such as illness, running out of money, or the death of a woman's mahram or husband on the road; so it occurs with any restraint that holds the pilgrim from continuing the requirements of ihram. This is also the view of Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn al-Zubayr, Alqama, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, Urwa, Mujahid, al-Nakha'i, Ata, Abu Thawr, and a narration from Ahmad. ² The Malikis hold that ihsar occurs by an enemy, by civil strife, and by unjust imprisonment; so do the Shafi'is and the prevailing Hanbali view, with other causes of compulsion, such as a husband preventing his wife from following. ² The three schools agree that one who cannot reach the House because of a restraint other than an enemy, such as illness, lameness or lost funds, may not release himself by that. Those who make release conditional on a restraint have a special rule, explained later. ² This view denies that illness counts, and it is the view of Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Tawus, al-Zuhri, Zayd ibn Aslam and Marwan ibn al-Hakam. ² The Hanafis argue from the Qur'an, the sunna and reason. From the Qur'an, the verse on ihsar: the word in its root sense is for illness, and the enemy is included in meaning. From the sunna, the hadith of al-Hajjaj ibn Amr al-Ansari: «whoever is broken or lamed has been released, and must make up the hajj the following year»; another version adds «or ill». From reason, illness is analogous to the enemy, since both hold back from the pillars of the rite. ³ The majority argue from the Qur'an, reports and reason. From the Qur'an, the verse itself was revealed at Hudaybiyya about an enemy, and the sick person is included in the general command to complete hajj and umra. ³ From reports, Ibn Abbas said: there is no ihsar but the ihsar of the enemy; the one who falls ill or hurts or goes astray owes nothing. ³ Malik's Muwatta reports that Ibn Umar, Marwan and Ibn al-Zubayr ruled for Ibn Hazzaba al-Makhzumi, who was thrown down in a part of the road to Mecca while in ihram, that he should treat himself with what he needs and pay a ransom; when he recovers he should perform umra and be released from his ihram, and must make up the hajj the following year and sacrifice an offering. This chain is sound. ⁴ From reason, al-Shirazi argued: if one enters ihram and illness prevents him, he may not release himself, since by release he does not escape the harm he is in, and he is like one who has lost his way. ⁴ Conditions of ihsar. The jurists did not state the conditions explicitly, but they can be drawn out. ⁴ First, the rite must have been entered before the prevention: hajj, umra or both. If an obstacle arises before ihram, nothing is owed. Ihsar applies to a defective ihram as to a valid one, with its consequences. ⁴ Second, if he is in hajj ihram, he must not have stood at Arafat before the obstacle arose from continuing. The Hanafis and Malikis hold this; the Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold that ihsar from circling the House applies. For umra, ihsar occurs by being prevented from most of the circling, by agreement. ⁴ Third, he must despair of the removal of the obstacle, by certainty or strong likelihood that it will not be removed before the hajj is lost, so that there is no time between him and the night of sacrifice in which he could travel if the excuse ended. The Malikis and Shafi'is state this; al-Ramli put the period for umra at three days. An obstacle whose removal is expected soon is not ihsar. ⁴ Fourth, a condition the Malikis alone state: that the pilgrim did not know, when he entered ihram, of the obstacle to completing hajj or umra. If he knew, he may not release himself; he remains in ihram until he performs hajj the following year, unless he expected it would not stop him and it did, in which case he may release himself then, as the Prophet did at Hudaybiyya, when he entered umra knowing of the enemy but expecting it would not bar him. ⁴ Types of ihsar by the pillar prevented from. There are three. ⁵ First, ihsar from standing at Arafat and from the Ifada circling together, which is true ihsar with its consequences; the imams agree, though they differ on some causes. ⁵ Second, ihsar from standing at Arafat but not from circling. The Hanafis say this is not ihsar, a view also reported from Ahmad, since the pilgrim can release himself by the acts of umra with his earlier ihram. ⁵ The compiler of al-Maslak al-Mutaqassit said: one barred only from standing is in the position of one who has missed hajj; he releases himself after the standing time has passed by the acts of umra, owes no offering and no umra for the make-up. ⁵ The Malikis and Shafi'is count him as prevented and release him by the acts of umra, but the results differ: the Hanafis treat it as a release of one who missed hajj with no offering, while the Malikis and Shafi'is treat it as ihsar release with an offering. ⁵ The Hanbalis may turn the hajj intention into umra with no offering; if he circled and ran for arrival and was then prevented until he missed hajj, he releases himself by another circling and running. ⁵ Third, ihsar from the pillar circling. The Hanafis and Malikis hold that one who has stood at Arafat and is then prevented is not in ihsar, since the risk of missing hajj is gone. He does the other rites of hajj, and remains in ihram as far as women are concerned until he circles the Ifada. ⁶ The Shafi'is say that if the pilgrim is barred from Mecca but not from Arafat, he stands and releases himself; there is no make-up, in the sounder view. ⁶ The Hanbalis distinguish: if prevented from the House after standing and before the stoning, he may release himself; if prevented from the Ifada circling after the stoning at Jamrat al-Aqaba, he may not, because his ihram then concerns only women, while the law provided release only from full ihram. ⁶ Once the prevention ends he circles, and his hajj is complete. ⁶ Types of ihsar by cause. Ihsar by a cause of compulsion or authority includes: the enemy, civil strife, imprisonment, a ruler's prevention, being attacked by a wild beast, a creditor preventing his debtor, a husband preventing his wife, the death or disappearance of the pilgrim or husband, a sudden waiting period, a guardian preventing a child or a fool, and a master preventing his slave. ⁶ The Malikis limit the ihsar that allows release to three causes: the enemy, strife, and unjust imprisonment; these are agreed across the schools. The Hanafis alone add the ruler's prevention, the wild beast and the sudden waiting period. ⁶ a. Ihsar by an unbelieving enemy: the enemy seizes a place on the road of pilgrims, cuts the way and bars them from completing their rites. This form is agreed to be legal ihsar, and the Qur'an was revealed about it. ⁷ The Hanafis and Malikis hold that if the enemy blocks one road to Mecca or Arafat and the pilgrim finds another, one must examine it: if taking it harms him, by its length or difficulty, in a considerable way, he is legally prevented; otherwise not. ⁷ The Shafi'is oblige the pilgrim to take the other road even if it is longer or harder, so long as he has money for it; the Hanbali wording is absolute and points to the same obligation, even if the road is longer or harder. ⁷ If he takes the longer road and misses hajj because of its length or roughness, there are two views in each school; the sounder Shafi'i view is that he owes no make-up and releases himself as one prevented; the other view requires make-up, as if he had taken it from the start. If the two roads are equal in every way, make-up is owed without dispute, since the loss is a plain missing. ⁷ b. Ihsar by civil strife: war breaks out between Muslims and the pilgrim is prevented by it, as the strife between al-Hajjaj and Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr in 73 AH. This is legal ihsar by agreement, like the enemy. ⁷ c. Imprisonment: the pilgrim is jailed after entering ihram. The Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis distinguish imprisonment with right and imprisonment without right: if he is imprisoned unjustly, or is a debtor whose insolvency is proven, he is prevented. If he is imprisoned for a right he owes and can get out of, he may not release himself and is not prevented; his case is like illness. The Hanafis allow imprisonment as a cause of ihsar without distinction. ⁷ d. A creditor preventing his debtor: the Shafi'is and Hanbalis count debt as a bar to the rite within the law of ihsar. ⁷ The creditor. The Malikis count imprisonment for debt as ihsar only if it is unjust; the Hanafis make imprisonment a cause in general, so the question is settled for them by imprisonment as such. ⁸ The husband preventing his wife. This makes her ihsar by agreement of the four schools, in voluntary hajj or voluntary umra for all, and in umra of Islam for the Hanafis and Malikis, who deny its obligation. ⁸ If the husband gave his permission from the start for a voluntary hajj or umra, and she has a mahram, he may not prevent her after entry, because that would be deceiving her, and her prevention by him does not count as ihsar. ⁸ For the obligatory hajj, or a hajj owed by vow, entered without the husband's permission while she has a mahram, the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis do not count her as prevented, since they do not make his permission a condition of the obligation; he may not stop her from an obligatory hajj nor release her by a forbidden act of ihram. ⁸ The Shafi'is make the husband's permission a condition of the obligation of hajj; if he did not permit it before her entry and then prevents her, she is in the first case, by the sounder Shafi'i view. ⁸ If she entered for the obligatory hajj with no mahram and her husband prevented her, she is prevented according to the Hanafis in the apparent narration, and so for the Shafis and Hanbalis; the Malikis do not count her as prevented if she travels with a trusted company and is herself trusted, since they accept this for a woman's obligatory journey. ⁸ The father preventing his son. The Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold that a parent or both may prevent a son from voluntary hajj but not from obligatory hajj; one Maliki narration extends it to obligatory hajj. The Malikis and Hanbalis do not count him as prevented by their prohibition, since the Malikis limit the causes of ihsar to what does not include this. ^{8 9} The Hanafis say it is disliked to set out for hajj if a parent objects and the father needs his son's service; if he does not need it, there is no harm. Obligatory hajj takes precedence over obedience to parents, and obedience to them takes precedence over voluntary hajj. ⁹ The emergent waiting period. This means a waiting period from divorce arising after entry. If a woman entered for the hajj of Islam, a vowed hajj or a voluntary one, and her husband divorced her so that she owed a waiting period, the Hanafis hold she is prevented even with a mahram, without any limit of journey distance. ⁹ The Malikis treat the waiting period after divorce as after the husband's death. ⁹ The Shafi'is: if she entered for hajj or qiran and was then divorced or widowed, and fears missing the rite because of a short time, she must set out, while still in her waiting period, because the ihram came first; if the time is ample and she is safe from missing it, she may set out for it, since fixing the delay would impose the hardship of holding ihram. ⁹ The Hanbalis distinguish: a woman with a finally divorced status may set out for hajj in her waiting period; for a revocable divorce she is in ihsar as a wife. ⁹ Causes that bar continuing the rite. These include breaking or lameness, illness, loss of funds, loss of the mount, inability to walk, and losing the road to Mecca or Arafat. The Hanafis hold that a pilgrim so barred is in ihsar. ⁹ The majority say these do not make a pilgrim prevented in law; if he is held back by any of them he may not release himself until he reaches the House; if he catches the hajj in time, well; otherwise he releases himself by the acts of umra and his case is that of missing the rite. ⁹ Breaking or lameness. Lameness here means a condition that prevents walking; the basis is the earlier hadith: «whoever is broken or lamed is released». ⁹ Illness. The illness that counts here is one that prevents going on, judged by strong likelihood or by the report of a skilled and religious physician; some reports of the hadith add «or ill». ⁹ Loss of funds or mount. If a pilgrim's funds are stolen or lost on the road after he has entered ihram, or run out, he is not prevented if he can walk; if he cannot walk, he is prevented, as stated in al-Tajnis. ^{9 10} Inability to walk. If he enters ihram unable to walk from the start, and has the means for expenses but not for a mount, he is then prevented. ¹⁰ Losing the road: anyone who loses the road to Mecca or Arafat is prevented. ¹⁰ The rules of ihsar cover two matters: release, and what the barred pilgrim owes after release. ¹⁰ Release. In the lexicon it means doing what takes one out of sanctity; by technical definition it is ending the ihram and leaving it by the way the law set. ¹⁰ Permission to release. Once the mark of ihsar is present, release is allowed. This is agreed, each school by the causes it counts. ¹¹ The basis is the command to complete hajj and umra, which is the rule; release before completing is an exception by evidence. ¹⁰ The evidence is the verse on ihsar in al-Baqara (196): what is meant is that if you are barred and wish to release yourselves, the offering that is within reach. The ihsar alone does not require an offering, since he may remain in ihram until the obstacle lifts. ¹⁰ The sunna: the Prophet at Hudaybiyya released and ordered his companions to release when the polytheists barred them from umra at the Ancient House. ¹¹ Choosing between release and enduring ihram. The Hanafis say the barred pilgrim may release, that it is a concession for him so that his ihsar does not drag on and hurt him, and that he may also remain in ihram, return home without release, and stay in ihram until the fear passes. ¹² The Malikis: if one of their three causes (enemy, strife, imprisonment without right) bars him from completing the hajj by standing and the House together, or the umra by the House or the running, he may release by intention wherever he is, near Mecca or not, and he may remain for the following year, though release is better. ¹² If he is barred by something other than these three, such as illness, he is advised, when near Mecca, not to keep his hajj ihram to the next year, and to release by an umra. ¹² The Shafi'is distinguish between a wide and a narrow time. With a wide time it is better not to hasten release, since the obstacle may lift and the hajj be completed; with a narrow time it is better to hasten release lest the hajj be lost, unless he expects to reach it after the ihsar, or the umra within three days, in which case he must wait. ¹² The Hanbalis say the preferred course is to stay in ihram hoping the ihsar lifts; if it lifts before release, he must go on to complete his rite. ¹² In sum, the permission to release is agreed; the schools differ on whether it is better than remaining in ihram. If the barred pilgrim chooses release, he may release whenever he wishes, once he has done what release requires. ¹² This applies alike to one barred from hajj, umra, or both. ¹² Release from a defective ihram. A pilgrim whose ihram was defective may release when barred. If he had intercourse spoiling a hajj and was then barred, he releases, owing an offering for the spoiling and an offering for the ihsar, and he owes a make-up for the spoiling, agreed, since the dispute about make-up concerns ihsar after a valid ihram. ¹¹ If he did not release until he missed standing and could not circle, he releases in place as one barred, owing three offerings: one for the spoiling (a camel), one for the missing, and one for the ihsar, with one make-up. ^{11 12} The Malikis: in the first case one offering, that of spoiling, suffices, since they hold the barred owe no offering; in the second case two, the spoiling and the missing. ¹² Remaining in ihram. If the barred pilgrim chooses to stay in ihram and endure until the obstacle lifts, there are two cases for hajj. He may catch the hajj by reaching standing at Arafat, which is well. Or he may miss it by missing standing, and then the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis agree he releases by the acts of umra as one who missed hajj. The Hanafis say he owes no offering because that is the rule for missing, and he owes the make-up. The Shafi'is and Hanbalis say he owes the missing offering, not the ihsar one; the sounder Shafi'i view is no make-up, while the Hanbalis require it, by their rule that one who does not release until he misses the hajj owes the make-up. ¹² The Malikis hold that if he stays in ihram until the next year's ihram time and the obstacle lifts, he may not release by umra; the earlier ihram for hajj serves for the following year. ¹² If the obstacle continues and the hajj is missed: the Malikis and Shafi'is allow him to release as one barred, without make-up, the Shafi'is requiring an offering, and in one view make-up. The Hanbalis require make-up. The Hanafis treat it as missing, and the barring has no effect. ¹³ The wisdom of permitting release. The barred pilgrim needs to be released, as Kasani said, because he is held from continuing the requirement of ihram in a way he cannot push aside. If release were not allowed he would remain in ihram, unable to do what ihram forbids, until the obstacle lifted, which would bring great harm and hardship; so need leads to release, to remove harm and hardship. ¹³ The release of a barred pilgrim: the kinds of ihram. Ihsar is of two kinds by the way ihram was entered: ihram that is absolute, in which the pilgrim did not stipulate his right to release if an obstacle arose; and ihram in which he did stipulate it. ¹³ Ihsar in absolute ihram is of two kinds, as Hanafi jurisprudence draws out: barred by a real or legal obstacle that is God's right, with no part of the servant's right; and barred by a legal obstacle that is the servant's right, not God's. ¹³ The result of this division, as to ruling, matches the other schools in general, where they agree it is ihsar. ¹³ How the barred pilgrim releases. First, the intention to release. The start of intention to release is agreed as a condition; the disputes lie beyond it. The Shafi'is and Hanbalis require the intention at slaughtering the offering, so that the offering is for release, and then shaving; the Shafi'is also require it at shaving. ¹³ The Malikis hold that intention alone is the pillar of release for one barred by enemy, strife or unjust imprisonment; without the intention, slaughtering and shaving do not release. ¹⁴ The Hanafis say: when a barred pilgrim wants to release he must send the offering; they tie release to sending and slaughtering the offering on the intention to release, and exclude one who wants to stay waiting for the obstacle to lift. ¹⁴ Second, the offering. The offering in the lexicon is what is brought to the sanctuary, animals or otherwise; in the rites of hajj it specifically means camels, cattle, sheep and goats. ¹⁴ Most scholars hold the offering must be slaughtered for the barred pilgrim to release; sending or buying it does not release him until it is slaughtered. This is the view of the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, and a view of Ashhab among the Malikis. ¹⁴ The Malikis hold that the barred pilgrim releases by intention alone; the offering is recommended, not required. ¹⁴ The majority rely on the verse on the offering, and on the sunna: the Prophet did not release nor shave his head at Hudaybiyya until he had slaughtered the offering, so that slaughtering it is a condition of release if he has it. ¹⁴ The Malikis argue by analogy that it is an authorised release without fault and without shortfall, so no offering is due, as for one who completes his hajj. ¹⁴ What an offering in ihsar may be: a sheep suffices for one person, and goats likewise by agreement; a camel or cow may stand for seven according to the majority, including the four imams. ¹⁴ The offering owed by the barred. All agree that one barred while performing a single hajj or a single umra owes one offering to release. ¹⁵ For the qarin they differ: the Shafi'is and Hanbalis say one offering suffices, speaking of an offering in general; the Hanafis say release takes two offerings slaughtered in the sanctuary. ¹⁵ The root of the difference is the nature of the qarin's ihram: the Shafi'is hold he is in one ihram that stands for both, so one circling and one running suffice and he owes one offering; the Hanafis hold he is in two ihrams, owing two circlings and two runnings, and so two offerings; they prefer that the two be specified, one for barring from hajj and one for barring from umra, and they impose the two-offering rule for the ihram offences that bind a single pilgrim to one offering, and likewise for almsgiving. ¹⁵ Place of slaughter of the barring offering. The Shafi'is and a Hanbali narration say the barred pilgrim slaughters the offering where he is barred: in the sanctuary if he is in it, or in his place if outside; if he can reach the sanctuary and slaughters where he is, that suffices, on the sounder view in both schools. ¹⁵ The Hanafis, and a narration of Ahmad, hold that the place is fixed: the sanctuary. He must send the offering to the sanctuary to be slaughtered on his behalf, or send its price to buy and slaughter there; release is not achieved by sending nor by its arrival, only by slaughter in the sanctuary; slaughter outside does not release him. ^{15 16} Support for the Shafi'is and Hanbalis: the Prophet slaughtered his offering at Hudaybiyya when he was barred, and Hudaybiyya is in the lawful zone, citing the verse in al-Fath (25) about an offering held back from reaching its place. ¹⁶ Reason: requiring slaughter in the sanctuary would make release impossible whenever the offering cannot reach it, which weakens the condition. ¹⁶ The Hanafis fix the place by the verse of al-Baqara (196) forbidding shaving until the offering reaches its place, which they take as the sanctuary, and by analogy with the blood-offerings of worship: slaughter is an act of worship only in a time or place, and since time is not required, the place is. ¹⁶ Time of slaughter. Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad in his preferred view hold that the time is open: it is not fixed to the day of sacrifice, and the barred may slaughter at any time he chooses, whether barred from hajj or from umra. ¹⁶ Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, and a narration of Ahmad, hold that the barred from hajj may slaughter only on the three days of sacrifice, while the barred from umra may slaughter whenever he chooses. ¹⁶ The majority rely on the verse of al-Baqara (196), which names the offering without any time; to fix a time is to abrogate or restrict a definite text, which needs decisive evidence, and there is none. ¹⁶ Abu Yusuf and Muhammad argue that this is blood by which one releases from the hajj, so it is tied to the day of sacrifice, and they compare it to the offering of tamattu' and qiran, which is slaughtered on the days of sacrifice. ¹⁶ From this the consequence: on the majority view the barred may release as soon as his ihsar is established, by slaughtering, without waiting; on the view of the two companions he may not release until the day of sacrifice, since release depends on slaughter and it is slaughtered only on those days. ¹⁷ Inability to pay the offering. The Shafi'is and Hanbalis, and a narration of Abu Yusuf, hold that one unable to offer an animal has a substitute. The Shafis have three views: the preferred one is that the substitute is food valued in money to give as alms, and if he cannot pay that he fasts a day for each mudd (Abu Yusuf says a day for each half sa'); once he moves to fasting he may release at once, in the preferred Shafi'i view, by shaving and intention, since long waiting makes the hardship of ihram heavy. ¹⁷ The second is food only, with two forms: valued as before, or three sa' for six poor people, like the ransom for shaving. The third, the view of the Hanbalis, is that the substitute is fasting alone, ten days like the fasting of tamattu'. ¹⁷ Abu Hanifa, Muhammad, one Shafi'i view and the preferred Hanafi school hold there is no substitute. One who cannot find the offering, its price, or anyone to send it to the sanctuary remains in ihram forever and may not release by fasting or alms, which are not substitutes. ¹⁷ The Malikis do not require the offering at all, so there is no question of a substitute. ¹⁷ The Shafi'is and Hanbalis argue by analogy with the offering of tamattu' and other blood-offerings that have substitutes when they cannot be paid. ¹⁷ The Hanafis argue from the verse ending the prohibition on shaving at the offering's arrival, so release does not come until it is slaughtered, whether or not he fasts or feeds; and from the silence of the verse on a substitute, though it names one for game; and by reason, that release by blood before the obligations of ihram are complete is known from the text, unlike analogy, so no substitute may stand by opinion. ¹⁸ Shaving or cutting. Abu Hanifa, one view of Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Malik and one Hanbali view hold that shaving is not a condition for the barred to release: the Hanafis release by slaughter alone, and shaving is good if done; the Malikis say shaving is recommended. ¹⁸ Abu Yusuf in another narration says it is obligatory though one owes nothing if he omits it; in a third he says it is obligatory and must not be omitted, which was his last word, and al-Tahawi adopted it. ¹⁸ The preferred Shafi'i view and a Hanbali view hold that shaving or cutting is a condition of release, since shaving is a rite of hajj and umra; and an intention to release by shaving is required, as at slaughter. ¹⁸ Abu Hanifa and those with him rely on the verse: the verse on the offering for the barred (al-Baqara 196), which makes slaughter the whole of what barring requires, so adding shaving makes it part of the requirement, against the text. ¹⁸ The Shafi'is, Hanbalis and Abu Yusuf rely on what the Prophet did at Hudaybiyya: he shaved and ordered his companions to shave; when they delayed he shaved himself, and then they shaved and cut; he prayed for those who shaved and then for those who cut. Had shaving not been a rite he would not have prayed for them, and if it is a rite it must be performed. ^{18 19} Release of a barred person whose bar is a right of another. The barred person in such a case, according to the earlier distinctions, is released as follows: the Hanafis require the one with the right to bar him to perform an act forbidden in ihram, such as cutting hair or paring nails, with the intention of release; words alone do not suffice. ¹⁹ The Malikis, on the preferred view, release by the intention of the barred; if he refuses, the one whose right is affected releases him by his intention. ¹⁹ The Shafi'is and Hanbalis: a husband may release his wife, a father his son, a master his slave in the cases above. Release by the husband means he orders his wife to release, and she must then do so, and she may not release before his order; her release is like the barred one's, by slaughter and shaving, with the intention in both; release is achieved only by what the Shafi'is say releases the barred. ¹⁹ The father's release of the son is analogous. If the wife does not release after her husband orders it, he may enjoy her, and the sin is hers. ¹⁹ Stipulation at entry and the barred. Stipulation in ihram is to say at entry: «I intend hajj», or umra, «and if someone holds me back, my release is wherever you hold me». ¹⁹ The Hanafis and Malikis hold stipulation is not lawful and has no effect on release; the Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold it lawful and effective for release. ¹⁹ The effects of stipulation. For the Hanafis and Malikis, who deny its lawfulness, stipulation gives the pilgrim nothing: if an enemy or illness arises he may not release by it; it does not remove the offering the Hanafis require when he releases, nor replace the intention the Malikis require. ²⁰ For the Shafi'is, stipulation gives the stipulating pilgrim the right to release if an obstacle arises that is not a cause of ihsar in their view, such as illness, exhausted funds or losing the road; the proper limit for illness is hardship that is not normally tolerable in completing the rite. ²⁰ The release follows what he stipulated at entry: if he stipulated release without offering, no offering is due; the same if he said nothing about it; if he stipulated with an offering, it is due. ²⁰ If he said «if I fall ill, I am released», he is released by the illness without intention, and they read the hadith «whoever is broken or lamed is released» in that light. ²⁰ It is reported that the Prophet taught Dubā'a to stipulate, saying: «Make the hajj and stipulate that your release is where you are held». ²⁰ If he stipulates that his hajj becomes umra on an obstacle such as illness, this is valid, and better: as Umar told Abu Umayya, «make the hajj, stipulate, and say: O God, I intend the hajj and for it I set out; if it is easy, it is the hajj, otherwise umra». Aisha likewise taught the same to Urwa. ²⁰ On finding the excuse he may turn his hajj into umra, which suffices for the umra of Islam; it is preferable that he need not go out to the nearest lawful zone, since what is tolerated in continuing is not tolerated at the start. ²¹ The release-umra for ihsar does not suffice for the umra of Islam, because it is not truly umra but the acts of umra. The rule for release by illness is the rule for release by ihsar. ²¹ The Hanbalis say stipulation allows release as the Shafi'is say, but they extend it: an unqualified stipulation of release does two things: he may release if an enemy, illness or lost funds prevents him, and once he has released by such means he owes no offering or substitute fast, and releases by shaving. ²¹ This agrees with the Shafi'is, except that the Hanbalis treat both causes of ihsar and non-causes alike, while the Shafi'is do not apply stipulation to causes of ihsar, since release by ihsar is lawful without stipulation, so the stipulation is void and does not remove the offering. ²¹ Barred from standing at Arafat but not the House. This is not ihsar for the Hanafis and Hanbalis, and is ihsar for the Shafi'is and Malikis; all release by the acts of umra, as set out above. ²¹ If the one barred from standing releases before the standing time is lost he is treated as barred; if he delays until the standing is lost, his case is missing, not barring, as the Malikis hold; the Shafi'is should follow the same, and the Hanbalis hold so too unless he changed the hajj to umra before missing it. ²¹ Barred from the House but not standing. This is ihsar for the Shafi'is and Hanbalis, who require him to stand at Arafat and then release, by slaughter and shaving with intention in both. ²¹ The Hanafis and Malikis say he is not barred: he must perform the Ifada circling and remains in ihram for women until he does. The Hanbalis agree when he is barred from the House after the stoning. ²¹ He performs the Ifada circling with his first ihram, because while he has not made the full release his ihram remains; circling is the release, and it has not occurred, so the ihram stands and needs no new one. ²¹ Offences before the barred releases. A barred pilgrim who has not released and commits some prohibited act, or releases but offends before the release, owes what the unbarred pilgrim owes; the four schools agree. ²² The Hanbalis, in the view of most of them and Mardawi's statement that this is the school's view, say: if the barred intends release before slaughtering the offering, or before fasting if he has no offering, he is not released, because the condition is missing; and he owes a blood-offering for each prohibited act after the intended release, and one for his release by intention. ²² Make-up for the rite barred from. All agree that a barred pilgrim must make up any obligatory rite he was barred from: the obligatory hajj of Islam, the vowed hajj or umra, and for the Shafi'is and Hanbalis the umra of Islam; the barring does not drop this obligation. ²² That is plain, since the command to obligation falls from the person only by performing what was obligatory. ²² The Shafi'is distinguish: an obligation that is fixed, such as a make-up, a vow, or the hajj of Islam whose obligation was fixed before this year, remains in his charge, and the barring merely allowed release from it; one that is not yet fixed, such as the hajj of Islam in the first year he could perform it, lapses when the means are lost, so he owes no hajj unless the conditions are met later. ²² For a voluntary rite barred from, most jurists hold that no make-up is due. They rely on the fact that when the Prophet turned back from the House in the year of Hudaybiyya, he ordered no one to make up anything, and did not say in the following year that this umra was a make-up for the umra he was barred from; the umra of the next year was called the umra of the make-up (qada) only because he agreed with Quraysh that year to turn back and come again in the next. ²² Ibn Rushd of the Malikis states that the wife and the foolish person must make up, attributing this to Ibn al-Qasim as a narration from Malik; al-Dardir says only the wife must, and al-Dasuqi explains that the restraint on a wife is weak since it concerns another's right, while the restraint on a foolish person concerns his own. ²³ The Hanafis hold that a voluntary rite barred from must be made up, because the umra of the Prophet and his companions in the year after Hudaybiyya was a make-up for that umra, which is why it was called the umra of make-up; this is also narrated from Ahmad and is a view opposed to the sound one. ²³ What the barred must make up. The Hanafis say that one barred from hajj who releases and makes up later owes a hajj and an umra, a qarin owes one hajj and two umras, and one barred from umra makes up the umra only; the intention to make up is required in all of them. ²³ The three imams say the rite barred from is made up alone: hajj for hajj, umra for umra; the intention to make up is required too. ²³ The Hanafis rely on reports from some Companions, Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn Abbas, who said of one barred from hajj that he owes an umra and a hajj, a ruling that could only come from revelation, and followed by Alqama, al-Hasan, Ibrahim, Salim, al-Qasim and Muhammad ibn Sirin. ²³ The majority rely on the hadith «whoever is broken or lamed has been released, and must make up the hajj the following year», which does not mention umra; had umra been obligatory with hajj, it would have been named. ²³ Barring after standing at Arafat has two cases: a bar from the Ifada circling and what follows it, or a bar from what comes after the Ifada circling. ²³ If one holds that a bar from the Ifada circling is ihsar when its conditions are met, release follows the rules given above; if one holds it is not ihsar, the pilgrim remains in ihram until he performs the Ifada circling, as the Hanafis and Malikis hold, and owes the penalty for the rites he missed. ^{23 24} A bar after the Ifada circling. The scholars agree that a pilgrim barred after standing and the Ifada circling is not barred, whatever the cause, enemy or illness, and may not release by that bar, since the validity of the hajj does not depend on what follows standing and circling; he owes the offering for what he left undone. ²⁴ Consequences. The Hanafis say that one who stands at Arafat and is then barred is not barred in law, and remains in ihram for everything forbidden if he has not shaved; if he has shaved he remains in ihram only for women until he performs the visiting circling. ²⁴ If he is prevented from the rest of the rites until the days of sacrifice pass, he owes four offerings together: for leaving Muzdalifa, for the stoning, for delaying the circling, and for delaying the shaving; a fifth if he shaved outside the sanctuary and a sixth if he was a qarin or mutamatti' because of the broken order; he must perform the visiting circling even to the end of his life. ²⁴ The Malikis say he may release only by the Ifada circling if he had run before standing; if the bar came before running, he may release only by the Ifada circling and running; and he owes one offering for the stoning and the nights at Mina and the stay at Muzdalifa if he left them because of the bar, as one who forgot them owes one. ²⁴ The Shafi'is say that if the bar comes after standing, he may release; if he does not release and misses the stoning and the nights at Mina, he owes an offering for missing them, as any unbarred pilgrim would. ²⁴ The Hanbalis say that if he is barred from the House after standing he may release, because a bar that permits release from the whole permits release from part; if what he is barred from is not a pillar, such as the stoning, the farewell circling or the nights at Muzdalifa or Mina, he may not release by the bar, and owes an offering for leaving it, while his hajj is valid. ²⁴ The lifting of ihsar. The schools differ on the results of the lifting of ihsar. The Hanafis give five cases. In the first, the bar lifts before the offering is sent while there is time to catch the hajj; in the second, it lifts after the offering is sent and there is room to catch both the offering and the hajj; in both he must go on with the rite he entered. ²⁵ In the third, he can neither send the offering nor reach the hajj; he need not go on, and he may release, waiting until the time promised for slaughter, or setting out to release by the acts of umra as one who missed hajj, owing a make-up umra later. ²⁵ In the fourth, he can reach the offering but not the hajj; he need not go on, since reaching the offering without the hajj has no purpose. ²⁵ In the fifth, he can reach the hajj but not the offering: by analogy with Abu Hanifa he must go on and may not release; by the better reasoning, he may release, since the offering has gone on its way and slaughter on his behalf counts as if the bar had lifted by it. ²⁵ The Malikis say: if the enemy withdraws as the pilgrim nears release, before shaving and slaughter, and he is far from Mecca, he may release and shave; if the bar lifts with time enough to catch the hajj that year, he may not release; if the time is short but he is near Mecca, he may release only by performing umra. ^{25 26} The Shafi'is: if the bar lifts and the time is ample enough to renew ihram and catch the hajj, and the hajj was voluntary, nothing is owed; if the hajj was already due, its obligation stands; the better course is to enter ihram for it this year, though he may delay, since the hajj for the Shafi'is is not fixed in time; if it was the hajj of Islam that became due this year, the obligation is fixed in his charge; if the time is too short to catch the hajj, the obligation lapses this year and he owes it later if able. ²⁶ The Hanbalis: if the barred did not release before the bar lifted, he may not release, since the excuse has gone; if the excuse lifts after the hajj is lost, he releases by umra and owes an offering for the loss, not for the bar; if he lost the hajj while the bar continued, he may release by it and owes an offering for release, and possibly another for the loss; if he released by the bar and then the bar lifted and he can catch the hajj that year, he must perform it if the make-up is owed or the hajj was obligatory; otherwise nothing. ²⁶ The lifting of ihsar in umra. Umra has the whole of life as its time, so not all the cases for hajj arise. The Hanafis have these: the bar lifts before the offering is sent, so he must set out to perform the umra; the bar lifts with time to catch both the offering and the umra, so he must set out; or he can catch the umra but not the offering, where by analogy he must set out and by better reasoning he need not. ²⁶ The Malikis: if the enemy withdraws from the bar of umra and he is far from Mecca, he may release; if he is near Mecca he should not release, since he can perform the umra. ²⁷ The Shafi'is and Hanbalis: if the enemy withdraws before the release from umra, he may not release and must perform the umra; if the enemy withdraws after release, and the umra he released from was obligatory, he must make it up, without a fixed time, since umra has no fixed time; if the bar lifts after release and the umra was voluntary, nothing is owed on the view that voluntary rites need no make-up. ²⁷ A subsidiary point: release from a defective ihram and then the lifting of the bar. If one released from a defective ihram and the bar lifted with time enough, he makes up the defective hajj in the same year, on the view that the make-up is immediate; this is a curiosity that arises only in this case, and it is agreed. ²⁷ Bar after bar. If the barred sent the offering to the sanctuary and the bar lifted, then another bar arose: if he knows the offering will reach the sanctuary alive, and intends with it release from the second bar, his release is valid if its conditions hold; if he did not intend it, it is not valid at all. This is the Hanafi rule of sending the offering to the sanctuary; for the others it is a bar before release, released from by what releases from the earlier bar. ²⁷